Correct. This is the only way around things, and it's perfectly valid as long as it's written into his contract at the point he's signed.

cant you guys start another thread? salary cap one? right back on track, so who we signing today?

There's a distinct lack of bald players in Superleague.

The RFL should launch an investigation into this ASAP, it's blatant baldism that's rife within the clubs.

I read the other day about a policy Castleford have when signing youg players. They make the young player turn up with their dad, bringing along their birth certificate & dads ID. Once they confirm that it is actually ther dad, they then assess the head of the dad for baldness. If their assessment shows the dad is folically challenged, no contract for the young un. It's disgusting.

You're mixing together cap-space and wages, I think.

If the cap is £1.6m and...

Joe Bloggs earns £100k p/a. He moves clubs midway through the season and his wage is unchanged. Both his old club and his new [iwere[/i spending £1.5m p/a. His new club is now at full cap, even though he won't earn £100k during the rest of [ithis[/i season - the cap they weren't spending earlier in the year is 'lost'.
His new club's cap spend falls to £1.4m. They could now sign a player on a deal worth £200k [ia year[/i, but they can't pay a player £200k [ithis year[/i.

I'll shut-up about it now!

thank you

What you on about now....Sterling had long hair when he played for us...he was the best i have seen for 1 SEASON but best overall is Norton and he was folically challenged.

Sterlo is as bald as a coot.

Norton was indeed bald. It's a pity that if Norton was around these days, that he wouldn't get a chance due to the baldism within Rugby League.

Mark Calderwood went bald = no contract from Hull. Disgusting.

I don't think that's correct. Joe Bloggs would be on 50k at the new club for that season and the old club would now have an additional 50k spare on the cap to use how they see fit.

I think you're seeing it the same way I was saying. Poorly explained, but the right way to do things if it actually is like that.

Ahh, I think the penny has just dropped for me.

I would think it's fairly safe to assume these days that the top 25 earners within most SL clubs playing rosters are paid on a monthly basis.
If we assume the annual cap is 1.8million (for the sake of simplicity), then that equates to a monthly cap of £150k. At no point in the year must the combined monthly salaries of those 25 players top that figure of £150k (pre-tax).
That monthly figure is basically a "use it or lose it" scenario. As you point out, shortfalls cannot be accumulated and then be used at a stragitic point at the back end of the year.
In the case of someone like Liam Watts, then it is the onus of the club to word his contract to reflect the actual outlay each month (as others have already pointed out).

Clear as day now

That's because you're looking at it as a rule covering a single transaction type. It isn't. It's several rules designed to cover several different eventualities all rolled into one. It's all about trying to ensure that a club can't get an advantage out of manipulating signings/wages.

If a player's full wage didn't count for the full season you could sign a megastar on a huge wage for a short period - like a cup final or the playoffs - with minimum impact on your cap spend. It's been done before.

Another thing to consider is what the RFL do if Bradford do go out of business this season. If they take the same attitude they did with Crusaders they will have to relax salary cap rules so the now out of work players can get jobs. Cue certain teams using it as an opportunity to avoid the cap even more, like Wigans deal with Tompkins.

Anyone remember Darren Rogers?

His autobiography says that one morning he woke up next to a couple of hairs on his pillow. That same afternoon he was sacked by Cas for breach of contract by going bald.

It was a similar story with James Evans so I'm told.